Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I asked you (very nicely) multiple times to summarize my position (on top of defining privacy, its role in a democratic society, and how it's threatened by this type of invasion). You did none of those things. Instead you dodged, used Tom's definition for privacy (after spending pages arguing against it), then used a direct response to your call for a worst case scenario as a summary of my position thinking of it as proof you're correct when all it did was prove how poorly you function in adult conversations. The insults also began with you, but I disagree I'm hurling insults. I'm hurling facts. The fact is you don't understand this topic, you've dodged every effort to get you to summarize your position (in the hopes of having an actual conversation), my position, or anyone else's position -- all the while you're hurling out declarative statements and insults. And so far you've demonstrated less cognitive ability than a brain damaged chimp. These are facts until you prove otherwise. If you want to know what I mean by control or where I stand on this topic, read these 35 pages, their sources and attached links, and you may -- just may -- understand what is being discussed by others in this thread. Once you show you have a real interest in this topic, and not just hurling insults, we can have a conversation about it. Seriously, instead of writing the above dodge, you could have simply saved time and wrote who was controlling what. You said the law was about control. Just explain that. Simple. That's all you have to do. Let's hear it
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Seriously, instead of writing the above dodge, you could have simply saved time and wrote who was controlling what. You said the law was about control. Just explain that. Simple. That's all you have to do. Let's hear it And instead of asking him to repeat himself, you could have read it one of the first dozen times he explained it.
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 And instead of asking him to repeat himself, you could have read it one of the first dozen times he explained it. perhaps you can explain what he meant.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Seriously, instead of writing the above dodge, you could have simply saved time and wrote who was controlling what. You said the law was about control. Just explain that. Simple. That's all you have to do. Let's hear it I never, ever, EVER said the law was about control. The law? What law? Do you mean the Patriot Act? You need to know the vocabulary for the topic if you hope to understand it. perhaps you can explain what he meant. Mags, I mean Sue, I mean... whoever you are, do your own homework.
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 The evidence is all there for you to see. We can (and have) debate whether or not bulk-collection is an effective tool in predicting and stopping terrorist attacks, we can get into the technical details of the programs from the leaked documents themselves, or the testimony of Snowden, Binney, or any of the other sources with first hand knowledge of the systems. That will inevitably lead back to debating those folks' credibility and motives. But it's a side show. This isn't about fighting terror, it never has been about fighting terror. It's always been about control. What's been about control?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 What's been about control? Read, and the answer becomes clear.
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Read, and the answer becomes clear. No it doesn't. Control of what by whom? What are you talking about? Gosh, you are acting like I'm going to show what a fool you are by using your own words against you, so you cut, dodge, weave and hide to avoid it. I wouldn't do that to you...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 No it doesn't. Control of what by whom? What are you talking about? Gosh, you are acting like I'm going to show what a fool you are by using your own words against you, so you cut, dodge, weave and hide to avoid it. I wouldn't do that to you... Trust me, answering the question won't make me look like a fool -- or at least it won't make me look more foolish than you who cannot figure the answer out for himself... despite the answer being glaring obvious.
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Trust me, answering the question won't make me look like a fool -- or at least it won't make me look more foolish than you who cannot figure the answer out for himself... despite the answer being glaring obvious. Dodge! You are afraid to answer something that's "obvious" It's your thread It's your comment And you are afraid to answer
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Dodge! You are afraid to answer something that's "obvious" It's your thread It's your comment And you are afraid to answer Answer what?
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Answer what? Dodge! You are afraid to answer something that's "obvious" It's your thread It's your comment And you are afraid to answer
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 Dodge! You are afraid to answer something that's "obvious" It's your thread It's your comment And you are afraid to answer The answer is in the post you quoted... Which is why your line of questioning is so absurdly hilarious. The evidence is all there for you to see. We can (and have) debate whether or not bulk-collection is an effective tool in predicting and stopping terrorist attacks, we can get into the technical details of the programs from the leaked documents themselves, or the testimony of Snowden, Binney, or any of the other sources with first hand knowledge of the systems. That will inevitably lead back to debating those folks' credibility and motives. But it's a side show. This isn't about fighting terror, it never has been about fighting terror. It's always been about control. ************************************************************ (Back on topic) Snowden on Snowden “I think it’s reasonable that the government, when it has a warrant from a court, enjoy extraordinary powers,” he says. “This is no different from having the police able to get a warrant to search your house, kick in your door because they think you’re an arms dealer or something. There needs to be a process involved that needs to be public and needs to be challengeable in court at all times.” He sees this approach, however, as a long way from the current reality. “This whole pre-criminal investigation where we watch everybody the whole time, just in case, is really an extraordinary departure from the Western liberal tradition. We are all today being monitored in advance of any criminal suspicion. And I think that’s terrifying, a deeply illiberal concept and something that we should reject.” “In liberal societies we don’t typically require citizens to rearrange their activities, their lives, the way they go about their business, to make it easy for the police to do their work,” he says. “When police officers knock on your door with a warrant, they don’t expect you to give them a tour. It’s supposed to be an adversarial process so that these extraordinary powers are used only when there’s no alternative. “Only when they’re absolutely necessary and only when they are proportionate to the threat faced by these individuals. And that’s what we do by shifting it from mass communications, bulk collections, and put it back on the targeted, individualised basis where they have to show they have a reasonable suspicion that this particular individual is involved in wrongdoing ahead of interception.” (worth the read) http://factor-tech.com/feature/uks-first-commercial-scale-aquaponic-urban-farm-could-be-blueprint-for-city-farming/
Tiberius Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 No, control of who and by whom? You just sound like a paranoid sorry, last time, I'm now out
B-Man Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 This has turned in to an Abbot and Costello skit. Good Lord Tom, let's leave Bud and Lou out of this............they had talent. Cop: He got 10,000 volts. Lou Costello: That’s enough to elect anybody, he should be president. Bud Abbott: No, not that kind. Lou Costello: What kind? Bud Abbott: Volts. Lou Costello: That’s what I said, he got 10,000. Bud Abbott: You know what volts are? Lou Costello: They’re what? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: What I say? Bud Abbott: Volts are watts. Lou Costello: Go ahead and tell me. Bud Abbott: You just said it. Lou Costello: I just asked you to tell me what I said. What I said? Bud Abbott: Volts are watts! Lou Costello: Volts are whats? Bud Abbott: Yes. Lou Costello: I’m asking you what’s volts. Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Don’t try to twist me now, what are you talking about, a dialect? Bud Abbott: Watts! Watts! Watts! Lou Costello: What’s what’s what’s whats? Bud Abbott: Volts! Lou Costello: What’s volts? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Well, go ahead and tell me. Bud Abbott: Well, that’s it. Lou Costello: What are volts? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: I’m asking you. Bud Abbott: Watts are volts. Lou Costello: What? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Next thing you know you’ll be telling me Watts on second base! Bud Abbott: Now, don’t start that! Lou Costello: That’s enough!
Deranged Rhino Posted May 27, 2015 Author Posted May 27, 2015 No, control of who and by whom? You just sound like a paranoid sorry, last time, I'm now out I "sound like a paranoid" because I answered your question? How does that work?
Azalin Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I "sound like a paranoid" because I answered your question? How does that work? No habla corndog?
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I "sound like a paranoid" because I answered your question? How does that work? "Double dumbass on you!"
....lybob Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Good Lord Tom, let's leave Bud and Lou out of this............they had talent. Cop: He got 10,000 volts. Lou Costello: That’s enough to elect anybody, he should be president. Bud Abbott: No, not that kind. Lou Costello: What kind? Bud Abbott: Volts. Lou Costello: That’s what I said, he got 10,000. Bud Abbott: You know what volts are? Lou Costello: They’re what? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: What I say? Bud Abbott: Volts are watts. Lou Costello: Go ahead and tell me. Bud Abbott: You just said it. Lou Costello: I just asked you to tell me what I said. What I said? Bud Abbott: Volts are watts! Lou Costello: Volts are whats? Bud Abbott: Yes. Lou Costello: I’m asking you what’s volts. Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Don’t try to twist me now, what are you talking about, a dialect? Bud Abbott: Watts! Watts! Watts! Lou Costello: What’s what’s what’s whats? Bud Abbott: Volts! Lou Costello: What’s volts? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Well, go ahead and tell me. Bud Abbott: Well, that’s it. Lou Costello: What are volts? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: I’m asking you. Bud Abbott: Watts are volts. Lou Costello: What? Bud Abbott: That’s right. Lou Costello: Next thing you know you’ll be telling me Watts on second base! Bud Abbott: Now, don’t start that! Lou Costello: That’s enough! great now some dunce is going to think Volts are Watts
Recommended Posts